Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 341015714502803456
What he said hasn't got anything to do with a lack of evidence 😒
@Mimic King#0692
>a lack of evidence is never what shows that a hypothesis is untenable
I agree with you! How am I not clear?
for a hypothesis to be falsifiable, there must be a condition whereby evidence to support the claim CAN be discovered
So saying that "lack of fossils" would falsify evolution and natural selection is completely nonsensical
"Falsifiable means that a discovery can be made that makes a hypothesis untenable"
That's what I said numbnuts.
Right, meaning, contravening evidence, not a LACK of evidence
EXACTLY
a lack of evidence just means the hypothesis is unproven
🤔
it doesn't mean the hypothesis is unfalsifiable
so, you're confused
And i never mentions fossils, I mentioned mutations.
No, you are confused.
Your script broke.
GG.
Haha
mutations, whatever
@Deleted User materialism is not very agile. It needs dialectics to function properly. Many materialist are less agile than even some idealists.
it's not a lack of mutations what would falsify evolution
because you don't actually understand falsifiability yet
I know, but if mutations where show to not occur, this was discovered, it would falsify evolution.
again, you're completely confused on falsifiability
what you're saying is that a lack of mutations would leave the theory of evolution UNSUBSTANTIATED
@Firefly#9983 Hmm, I will have to think of a good way to communicate historical and dialectical materialism is a single way. Or not! When I feel like it.
that doesn't mean it would be unfalsifiable or falsifiable based on a lack of mutations
I don't think you understand evolution, then.
I understand it just fine, you just don't understand what falsifiability is
@Deleted User is hard man.
Sorry, I'm a retard, Marx is a retard, the holocaust never happened, and I want to stroke your penis.
For the evolutionary hypothesis to be falsifiable, there must exist a plausible observable condition that would prove it's existtence, which it has, thereofre the hypothesis is falsifiable
even if no evidence were found, it would simply show the hypothesis was unfounded, not that it was unfalsifiable
Marxist hypotheses on the other hand ARE unfalsifiable, because there exist no conditions for which evidence could be observed in support of their claims, owing to the fact that the hypotheses themselves are malformed and reliant on subjective conditions and definitions
i.e. pseudoscience
for example, the entirety of Marxian economic theory is predicated on the idea of "socially necessary labor time"
which is incalculable
therefore literally nothing in Marxian economic theory has any rational foundations, since the very unit of measure determining the value of work in their system is undefined and undefinable
Did someone say evolution?
again, i.e. a pseudoscience
Please, tell me more.